State v. Mora
| Decision Date | 24 April 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 20020095-CA.,20020095-CA. |
| Citation | 69 P.3d 838,2003 UT App 117 |
| Parties | STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Gustavo MORA, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
Susanne Gustin-Furgis, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.
Mark L. Shurtleff, Atty. Gen., and Marian Decker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges DAVIS, GREENWOOD, and ORME.
¶ 1 Gustavo Mora (Mora) appeals the trial court's1 denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to aggravated robbery, a first degree felony, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-302 (1999). We reverse and remand.
¶ 2 Mora was charged with one count of aggravated robbery, a first degree felony, and theft from a person, a second degree felony. In separate proceedings, Mora was facing charges on two unrelated counts of aggravated robbery in Utah, and violation of a "three strikes" statute in California.
¶ 3 At a change of plea hearing on April 20, 2001, Mora pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated robbery with a firearm enhancement. In exchange, the State agreed to drop the theft charge and the two unrelated aggravated robbery charges.
¶ 4 During the plea colloquy, the elements of and factual basis for the aggravated robbery charge were discussed as follows:
¶ 5 When the trial court asked Mora whether he committed the crime, Mora answered, "I plead guilty to that one right there, to the first degree." Later, Mora signed the Affidavit of Defendant (affidavit) in open court and stated again, "I pled guilty" to aggravated robbery.
¶ 6 The trial court also questioned Mora about why he was pleading guilty. Mora said he was pleading guilty The trial court answered:
[T]he jail shouldn't have anything to do [with] it, and I'll tell you why. Because if you want to just take the trial and try them all ... you will stay in the county jail the whole time you're trying them and then you'll still be in the county jail for another six weeks to get a presentence report. So there is no way you're getting out of the county jail today by whatever decision you want to make.
¶ 7 Mora responded, Finally, when the trial court and the prosecution determined that Mora could receive a post-sentence report and be sent to prison immediately, Mora accepted the plea agreement.
¶ 8 During the colloquy, the trial court and Mora also discussed California's ability to sentence Mora consecutively on the "three strikes" charges. The discussion went as follows:
¶ 9 Later, Mora said, "I'll take [the ten years to life sentence] because I'm going to this prison, and from here, whenever I get out, I'm going over [to California] and they're going to give me [twenty-five] to life."
¶ 10 During the colloquy, the trial court did not tell Mora that, if he chose to go to trial, the State carried the burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
¶ 11 At the conclusion of the colloquy, Mora signed the affidavit. Prior to asking Mora to sign the affidavit, the trial court asked Mora whether he was satisfied with his counsel's representation and whether he had any questions. Mora responded that he was satisfied and that he did not have any questions. The trial court did not ask Mora whether he had read and understood the affidavit. The trial court then witnessed Mora sign the affidavit.
¶ 12 The affidavit lists the elements of aggravated robbery as: "(1) any person, (2) who takes personal prop[erty], (3) by use of force and fear, (4) with [a] gun." It also describes the factual basis for the charge as: "On October 11, 2000, in Salt Lake County, I took personal property from the victim and I had and possessed a gun that got the victim to give me the money." The affidavit further provides that Mora entered "this plea voluntarily and with knowledge and understanding" that, among other things, if he pleads not guilty and goes to trial, "the State of Utah will have the burden of proving each element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt;" if he is "on probation or parole, or awaiting sentencing on another offense of which [he] ha[s] been convicted or to which [he] ha[s] pled guilty, [his] plea in the present action may result in consecutive sentences being imposed;" and "by entering such plea, [he is] admitting and do[es] so admit that [he] ha[s] committed the conduct alleged and that [he is] guilty of the crime for which [his] plea is entered."
¶ 13 On May 11, 2001, Mora filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Mora argued that his plea should be withdrawn because the trial court failed to strictly comply with rule 11 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, Mora claimed the trial court failed to: (1) state the elements of aggravated robbery and how Mora's conduct related to those elements; (2) inform Mora that, if he chose to go to trial, the State bore the burden of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) inform Mora that, by pleading guilty, he was admitting guilt to all elements of aggravated robbery; (4) inform Mora that his plea could result in the imposition of consecutive sentences with his California charges; and (5) inquire about Mora's state of mind.
¶ 14 The trial court conducted a motion hearing on October 24, 2001. In an order dated December 12, 2001, the trial court denied Mora's motion, holding that Mora "was properly apprised [sic] of all of his constitutional rights" because, "[t]aken together, the oral colloquy and the [affidavit] contain a complete recitation of [Mora]'s constitutional rights." Specifically, the trial court held that: (1) the record does not support Mora's contention that "promises were made to him relative to his parole status in California;" (2) Mora's "admission to taking personal property from the victim by use of a gun is a sufficient factual basis for acceptance of a guilty plea;" (3) Mora's "demeanor... and his signature ... evidenced a knowing and voluntary waiver of his constitutional rights;" and (4) Mora entered the guilty plea "with full knowledge of the consequences of that plea, and of the elements of the offense."
¶ 15 On January 9, 2002, Mora appealed the trial court's decision.
¶ 16 Mora claims the trial court erred by denying Mora's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The "withdrawal of a plea of guilty is a privilege, not a right ... [and] is within the sound discretion of the trial court." State v. Gallegos, 738 P.2d 1040, 1041 (Utah 1987). Thus, "[w]e review a trial court's denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under an abuse-of-discretion standard." State v. Blair, 868 P.2d 802, 805 (Utah 1993).
¶ 17 Mora argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because his guilty plea was taken in violation of rule 11 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure.
¶ 18 "The purpose of rule 11 is to ensure that a defendant knows of his or her rights and thereby understands the consequences of a decision to plead guilty." State v. Martinez, 2001 UT 12, ¶ 22, 26 P.3d 203. Accordingly, "[r]ule 11(e) squarely places on trial courts the burden of ensuring that constitutional and [r]ule 11(e)2 requirements are complied with when a guilty plea is entered." State v. Gibbons, 740 P.2d 1309, 1312 (Utah 1987) (footnote added). In other words, "[t]he trial judge bears the burden of establishing, on the record, strict compliance with [r]ule 11(e)." State v. Penman, 964 P.2d 1157, 1160 (Utah Ct.App.1998). "However, `strict compliance can be accomplished by multiple means so long as no requirement of the rule is omitted and so long as the record reflects that the requirement has been fulfilled.'" Id. (quoting State v. Maguire, 830 P.2d 216, 218 (Utah 1991)). ¶ 19 A sufficient affidavit may be used to promote efficiency during a plea colloquy. See Gibbons, 740 P.2d at 1313
. However, "an affidavit should be only the starting point, not an end point, in the pleading process." Id. "It is critical ... that strict [r]ule 11 compliance be demonstrated on the record at the time the guilty or no contest plea is entered." State v. Smith, 812 P.2d 470, 477 (Utah Ct.App.1991). "Therefore, if an affidavit is used to aid [r]ule 11 compliance, it must be addressed during the plea hearing." Id. "The trial court must conduct an inquiry to establish that the defendant understands the affidavit and voluntarily signed it." Id.; see also State v. Maguire, 830 P.2d 216, 217, 1992 Utah LEXIS 29, No. 900555, *2-3 (Utah 1992) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lovell
...fails to inform a defendant of his constitutional rights under rule 11.’ ” Id. ¶ 10 (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Mora, 2003 UT App 117, ¶ 22, 69 P.3d 838). While the district court recognized that there is a presumption of harm when a rule 11(e) violation occurs, it con......
-
State Of Utah v. Lovell
...court fails to inform a defendant of his constitutional rights under rule 11.'" Id. ¶ 10 (second alteration in original)(quoting State v. Mora, 2003 UT App 117, ¶ 22, 69 P.3d 838). While the district court recognized the presumption of harm when a rule 11(e) violation occurs, it concluded t......
-
State v. Lehi, 20020590-CA.
...(emphasis in original) (quoting McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 470, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 1173, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969)); State v. Mora, 2003 UT App 117, ¶¶ 19-20, 69 P.3d 838 (reiterating this requirement and holding that defendant's "affidavit was not properly incorporated into the recor......
-
State v. Smith
...in court, with dozens of other cases waiting, to painstakingly go through each of the requirements of rule 11 for each plea. See State v. Mora , 2003 UT App 117, ¶ 19, 69 P.3d 838 (stating that "[a] sufficient [plea] affidavit may be used to promote efficiency during a plea colloquy"), disa......
-
Utah Standards of Appellate Review - Third Edition
...R. Civ. P. 61; Utah R. Crim. P 30(a); accord State v. Dominguez,2009 UT App 73, ¶ 12, 206 P.3d 640; State v. Mora, 2003 UT App 117, ¶ 22, 69 P.3d 838. This rule requires the appellant to show not only that an error occurred, but that it was "substantial and prejudicial." See Olson v. Olson,......